One of the leading specialists on online web communities, Amy Jo Kim, says this:
"... in a growing Web community it’s natural forpeople with some initiative and creativity to want toform their own self-defined groups, without muchinvolvement of the community leaders. You shouldwelcome the emergence of these groups, becauseit means that you’ve created an environment wherepeople feel a sense of belonging and ownership."
So if Kalmbach/MR wants their online modeling community to grow and flourish, the emergence of subgroups is exactly the direction they need to accommodate. Unfortunately, a one-thread-does-it-all chronologically-organized forum isn't a great way to build lots of rich content that's easy to access. There are better ways, but it will take some time to get there.
I know Kalmbach/MR is interested in ideas to this end, so this discussion is one way to give them feedback.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
rayw46 wrote: I do have to agree with you guys on this though. It was fine when there was only the coffee shop but now we have the following "clubs":Elliotts Trackside Diner (est 1-1-07) The 'DC' club DCC Club BEER BARN The "N" Crowd The "Club" Club And then we keep getting threads like "loco wish list" or "what's your favorite rollig stock" or "what's your least favorite rolling stock" or "what's your engine roster" or "whatever you can think of". Smoke, I've figured out how to deal with those specialty threads and, to be nice I'll just call them unproductive threads; I don't open them, which means that I sometimes open the forum, look at the topics that have been posted since the last time I visited, and then close the forum.
I do have to agree with you guys on this though. It was fine when there was only the coffee shop but now we have the following "clubs":
Elliotts Trackside Diner (est 1-1-07)
The 'DC' club
DCC Club
BEER BARN
The "N" Crowd
The "Club" Club
And then we keep getting threads like "loco wish list" or "what's your favorite rollig stock" or "what's your least favorite rolling stock" or "what's your engine roster" or "whatever you can think of".
Smoke, I've figured out how to deal with those specialty threads and, to be nice I'll just call them unproductive threads; I don't open them, which means that I sometimes open the forum, look at the topics that have been posted since the last time I visited, and then close the forum.
I don't open them either, I was just making the point.
-Smoke
tstage wrote: A couple of months ago I posted a mini-commentary (by the similar name) about the increase in the number of new "splinter groups" that have been "incorporated" here on the forum. While I do understand their purpose, it still concerns me that our forum seems to be gradually breaking up into smaller and smaller fractions and factions of groups. Even the two groups that have started up recently, I've noticed a modicum amount of in-fighting and friction between its "members" over the so-called "infiltraitors" from the other "gang" lurking in on their "meetings". This I find a very disturbing and disheartening trend.Personally, I find wading through an individual thread on a particular topic a lot easier to initially discern and understand than a continuing "group" thread that contains several "sub-topics" going on at the same time. While this doesn't pose much of a problem on shorter group threads (e.g. 2 pages and <), it does become increasingly more difficult to follow the longer the group thread gets and the number of sub-topics breaks down into further sub- sub-topics.(In all fairness, the above can be said for ANY longer thread that is posted here on the forum, since it's not uncommon for tangents to take the conversation in different directions. I'm speaking more specifically about topics that are covered under the larger headings that we already have established.) Perhaps this is just how our forum is ultimately evolving and changing into. If I were a newcomer to the hobby and I stumbled across this forum, I would personally view this trend of collaboration a rather daunting and limiting way to try and learn about something that I think I'm interested in. If you aren't in on the ground floor of the particular group-topic at hand, you have a real job cut out for you, in order to follow all the nuances of the conversation(s). (Let alone, learning all the added terminology and acronyms that we so often rattle off without thinking about it.) This would also likely make me feel as if I were constantly looking "from the outside in" and wonder if I would ever be a part of the conversation or "group". Unlike Part I to this sequel, there is no need to comment to this post. I'm simply expressing my observations and concerns over some unsatisfying signs that I'm beginning to notice - and some that I have noticed on the forum for a while now. Change is inevitable. Trends do come and some go. Perhaps this would be a good time to just take a small breather from things and re-evaluate. Tom
A couple of months ago I posted a mini-commentary (by the similar name) about the increase in the number of new "splinter groups" that have been "incorporated" here on the forum. While I do understand their purpose, it still concerns me that our forum seems to be gradually breaking up into smaller and smaller fractions and factions of groups. Even the two groups that have started up recently, I've noticed a modicum amount of in-fighting and friction between its "members" over the so-called "infiltraitors" from the other "gang" lurking in on their "meetings". This I find a very disturbing and disheartening trend.
Personally, I find wading through an individual thread on a particular topic a lot easier to initially discern and understand than a continuing "group" thread that contains several "sub-topics" going on at the same time. While this doesn't pose much of a problem on shorter group threads (e.g. 2 pages and <), it does become increasingly more difficult to follow the longer the group thread gets and the number of sub-topics breaks down into further sub- sub-topics.
(In all fairness, the above can be said for ANY longer thread that is posted here on the forum, since it's not uncommon for tangents to take the conversation in different directions. I'm speaking more specifically about topics that are covered under the larger headings that we already have established.)
Perhaps this is just how our forum is ultimately evolving and changing into. If I were a newcomer to the hobby and I stumbled across this forum, I would personally view this trend of collaboration a rather daunting and limiting way to try and learn about something that I think I'm interested in. If you aren't in on the ground floor of the particular group-topic at hand, you have a real job cut out for you, in order to follow all the nuances of the conversation(s). (Let alone, learning all the added terminology and acronyms that we so often rattle off without thinking about it.) This would also likely make me feel as if I were constantly looking "from the outside in" and wonder if I would ever be a part of the conversation or "group".
Unlike Part I to this sequel, there is no need to comment to this post. I'm simply expressing my observations and concerns over some unsatisfying signs that I'm beginning to notice - and some that I have noticed on the forum for a while now. Change is inevitable. Trends do come and some go. Perhaps this would be a good time to just take a small breather from things and re-evaluate.
Tom
No, its not the sugar. It's not the rubarb either. Nor the crocus. Cabin fever could explain it. But then this type of thing can happen anytime during any given year. I know!!!!! maybe it's the water!!!! The clear plasticy kind that comes in a bottle!!!!
No, it really is this: These types of forums give people a chance to express their opinions. That's nice. But, the thing is, eveyone thinks their opinion is the right one. And they prefer to gather with those who share their opinions, or at least agree in that direction.
Its only natural selection that we congregate with those who share our interets. Take any group: school, office, college,work, sports team, sports brand new groups at conferences or symposiums, etc. Tell them to divide themselves in groups of ten, and somehow they will manage to magnetate to each other. The ones who have the same "in commons".
The same is here. I do firmly believe, however, that groups should be tagged off, and not part of the general forum.
That is my opinion. All those who agree please step this way.....watch your footing, it can be bumpy as there are ruffles in the rug........light refreshments will be served on hand-painted clay....
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
AntonioFP45 wrote:Mr. Beasley, Bruce...that was just too funny. I'll use those next time my co-workers get into political debates! They seem to "drown" in sorrow whenever Teddy speaks....
Now, let's not get political here. Remember "Roe vs. Wade" is nothing more than the two ways of getting to Teddy Kennedy's car.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Hello everyone,
While I am finding this thread quite amusing, I'm going to try and address the serious side of it.
I do agree that the general BS threads should be allowed to flourish, as they will. However, IMHO they exist solely for entertainment purposes, nothing more. As Joe mentioned, it will be next to impossible to find anything on these "club" threads, and frankly, who wants to wade through 16 pages of chatter to pick up something useful?
I also strongly feel there should be some more division to the MRRing headings. The fact that "General Discussion" goes 3 or more pages deep in a day testifies to this need.
I don't think it would be a good idea to separate by scale because it would be too easy to miss some good stuff that's really not scale specific anyway. But a few more categories would be helpful. Maybe add:
Electronics & Train Control (From DC to DCC, Signal Systems, Computer Control, Wiring, etc.)
Layout Planning & Design (Advice on track planning and various design theory tips & tidbits.)
Operation (Prototype operation; from the yard to the mainline and everything in between.)
While these might tap Layouts and Layout Building some, I think they would primarily thin the General Discussion category and give the reader a bit more intuition when looking for specific topics. (And maybe keep some more interesting & productive stuff near the top.)
Just a thought...
MisterBeasley wrote: AntonioFP45 wrote:Mr. Beasley, Bruce...that was just too funny. I'll use those next time my co-workers get into political debates! They seem to "drown" in sorrow whenever Teddy speaks....Now, let's not get political here. Remember "Roe vs. Wade" is nothing more than the two ways of getting to Teddy Kennedy's car.
Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!
Do you guys know how strong the temptation to "dive" in on this one is?
Come on, now! I'm only human! I don't want to go off the "deep end"!
-George
"I've done some things in this life that I'm not very proud of. And the things I am proud of are pretty disgusting"
-Moe Syzclak, The Simpsons
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
cwn3 wrote:I also strongly feel there should be some more division to the MRRing headings. The fact that "General Discussion" goes 3 or more pages deep in a day testifies to this need.I don't think it would be a good idea to separate by scale because it would be too easy to miss some good stuff that's really not scale specific anyway. But a few more categories would be helpful. Maybe add:Electronics & Train Control (From DC to DCC, Signal Systems, Computer Control, Wiring, etc.)Layout Planning & Design (Advice on track planning and various design theory tips & tidbits.)Operation (Prototype operation; from the yard to the mainline and everything in between.)While these might tap Layouts and Layout Building some, I think they would primarily thin the General Discussion category and give the reader a bit more intuition when looking for specific topics. (And maybe keep some more interesting & productive stuff near the top.)
How about something organized around Kalmbach's own: Dream it. Plan it. Build it. ...
I'm thinking:
Dream: Prototype info, layout tours, philosophy pieces (the ideal throttle)
Plan: Track plan ideas, layout design guidelines, examples of design problem solutions.
Build: Room prep, benchwork, trackwork, scenery, bridges, structures.
To this I would add a new one: Operate it.
Operate: Everything that takes a layout from still life to something that moves: wiring, DCC, locos, rolling stock, car and train movement (car cards, switchlists, just running trains, Timetable and Train Order), signals, layout maintenance
What do you think of just having four other areas besides general discussion? If you splinter things up too much, then you make it hard for people to know where to look.
One of the problems with having more categories is keeping the posts in the right spot. This requires active moderation and at this point it appears that Kalmbach is unwilling or unable to put any further resources into moderating the forum. One person (Bergie bless him) can not do it alone, it needs more bodies.
Some forums I am one have a main administrator/moderator and then several volunteer moderators assigned to specific areas that they are knowledgeable in. I do not know if Kalmbach would want volunteer moderators but it is an option that works on other forums.
I like the sound of this Joe.
jfugate wrote:Dream: Prototype info, layout tours, philosophy pieces (the ideal throttle)Plan: Track plan ideas, layout design guidelines, examples of design problem solutions.Build: Room prep, benchwork, trackwork, scenery, bridges, structures.To this I would add a new one: Operate it.Operate: Everything that takes a layout from still life to something that moves: wiring, DCC, locos, rolling stock, car and train movement (car cards, switchlists, just running trains, Timetable and Train Order), signals, layout maintenanceWhat do you think of just having four other areas besides general discussion? If you splinter things up too much, then you make it hard for people to know where to look.
Agreed. I think headlined like that it should work very well. So all together you'd have 6 areas including the 70th Anniversary Boxcar section, which is kind of a force unto itself. Which I don't think is too much, Garden has 5 sections and MRR has over 10x as many posts!
Set up like this, I'll bet Operate would be the one that goes over 3 pages/day! Unless you were to add one more: Control and put all electronics, DCC, signaling, etc. in there... I dunno
Adelie wrote:I piped up in the Club Club, largely because it is a good shot in the ribs at the other "clubs." At least I hope that was it's intent
I've noticed that serious, thought provoking threads seldom last long. Threads that ask as simple question that can be answered in a few posts get repeated over and over again because they age off quickly and everyone is too lazy to use the search engine. Threads for trite chatting, or things that lend themselves to passionate opinions that can be restated and restated and restated and restated post after post are the ones that seem to last forever.
What ruins things like the weekend photo fun is people who insist on quoting the photos. So the same photo ends up being repeated over and over and over again. Once there was a photo thread where the rule was no high-fives, atta boys, or other comments just enjoy the photos. It quickly proved, once again, people can't follow the simplest directions as it rapidly became filled with "wow" and "nice" type posts.
James, Brisbane Australia
Modelling AT&SF in the 90s